Measuring the Impact of the New Brunswick Declaration

Martin Tolich

Abstract


The purpose of the article is to measure the impact of the New Brunswick Declaration.
The results of the study are in three parts: The first part of this article backgrounds the calling for the Ethics Rupture held at the University of New Brunswick in 2012 that produced the New Brunswick Declaration. The body of the article then measures the impact the New Brunswick Declaration has had on the international social science research community in terms of scholarly writing. The article concludes by reaffirming the Declaration as a living document: Its revision will occur at an ethics conference to be held in New Zealand in 2015.
The methods are a google search of any mention of the Declaration.


Keywords


New Brunswick Declaration; Scholarly writing;

Full Text:

PDF

References


Canadian Institute for Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. (2010). Tri-council policy statement on ethical conduct for research involving Humans. Second Edition. Ottawa: Interagency Panel on Research Ethics.

Davies, H., Wells, F., & Czarkowski, M. (2009). Standards for research ethics committees: Purpose, problems and the possibilities of other approaches. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(6), 382–383.

De Jong, J. P., van Zwieten, M. C. B., & Willems, D. L. (2012). Ethical review from the inside: Repertoires of evaluation in research ethics committee meetings. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34(7), 1039–1052. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01458.x

Dingwall, R. (2012). How did we ever get into this mess? The rise of ethical regulation in the social sciences. Ethics in Social Research (Studies in Qualitative Methodology), 12, 3–26.

Dixon-Woods, M., Angell, E., Ashcroft, R. E., & Bryman, A. (2007). Written work: The social functions of research ethics committee letters. Social Science & Medicine, 65(4), 792–802.

Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3-29.

Fluehr-Lobban, C. (2013). Ethics and Anthropology: Ideas and Practice. AltaMira Press.

Gontcharov, I. (2013). Methodological crisis in the social sciences: The new brunswick declaration as a new paradigm in research ethics governance? Transnational Legal Theory, 4(1), 146–156.

Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391-414.

Iphofen, R. (2013, March). The “ethics rupture” and the new brunswick declaration. Social Research Association. Retrieved from http://the-sra.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sra_research_matters_march_2013.pdf

Iphofen, R. (2009). Ethical decision-making in social research: A practical guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Israel, M. (2013). Lecture: Giving ethics and integrity a bad name. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/74156778

Israel, M. (2012). Rolling back the bureaucracies of ethics review. Journal of Medical Ethics, Medethics, 100942. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100942

Israel, M. (2014). Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: Beyond regulatory compliance (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists. Sage.

Jaspers, P., Houtepen, R., & Horstman, K. (2013). Ethical review: Standardizing procedures and local shaping of ethical review practices. Social Science & Medicine, 98, 311–318.

Kirsten, B. (2013, April 27). The great debate. Canadian Association of Research Ethics Boards Annual Meeting, Calgary.

Lowman, J., & Palys, T. (2007). Strict confidentiality: An alternative to PRE’s “limited confidentiality” doctrine. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5(2-4), 163-177.

Matt, S. (2013, April 15). Ethics review. London Ethics Symposium.

Mauthner, N. (2013). Open access data sharing policies: Implications for academic roles, practices and identities. Society for Research Into Higher Education.

Medical Research Council, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. (1998). Tri-council policy statement on ethical conduct for research involving Humans. Ottawa: Interagency Panel on Research Ethics.

Punch, M. (1994). Politics and ethics in qualitative research in Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. JHU Press.

Schrag, Z. M. (2013, February 26). Institutional review blog: New brunswick declaration seeks respect for researchers and participants. Retrieved from http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2013/02/new-brunswick-declaration-seeks-respect.html

Stark, L. (2012). Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Tolich, M., & Fitzgerald, M. H. (2006). If ethics committees were designed for ethnography. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 1(2), 71–78. doi:10.1525/jer.2006.1.2.71

van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2001). Is research-ethics review a moral panic? Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38(1), 19–36.

van den Hoonaard, W. C. (Ed.). (2002). Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2011). The Seduction of ethics: Transforming the social sciences. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2013a, April 15). Are we asked to “other” ourselves? Social scientists and the research-ethics review process. Symposium II (Values), Generic Ethics Principles in Social Research. Academy of Social Sciences, London.

van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2013b). The social and policy contexts of the New Brunswick Declaration on research ethics, integrity, and governance: A commentary. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2),104–109.

van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2013c). The ‘Ethics Rupture’ Summit, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, October 25–28, 2012. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(1), 3-7.

van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2011). The seduction of ethics: Transforming the social sciences. University of Toronto Press.

Van den Hoonaard, W. C., & Tolich, M. (2014). The New Brunswick Declaration of research ethics: A simple and radical perspective. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 39(1), 87–98.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/%25x

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2014 Martin Tolich

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Share us to:   

Reminder

  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

1. Register yourself in Journal B as an Author

  • Find the journal you want to submit to in CATEGORIES, click on “VIEW JOURNAL”, “Online Submissions”, “GO TO LOGIN” and “Edit My Profile”. Check “Author” on the “Edit Profile” page, then “Save”.

2. Submission

Online Submission: http://cscanada.org/index.php/ccc/submission/wizard

  • Go to “User Home”, and click on “Author” under the name of Journal B. You may start a New Submission by clicking on “CLICK HERE”.
  • We only use four mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases: caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net; ccc@cscanada.net; ccc@cscanada.org

 Articles published in Cross-Cultural Communication are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

 CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION Editorial Office

Address: 1055 Rue Lucien-L'Allier, Unit #772, Montreal, QC H3G 3C4, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail:caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture